Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility? Analysing the roles of disadvantaged...
-
Upload
adela-west -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility? Analysing the roles of disadvantaged...
Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility? Analysing the roles of disadvantaged places in urban Australia
Hal Pawson & Shanaka Herath, City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales
Paper to: Housing Studies Association Conference, York, 8-10 April 2015
Presentation overview1. Theoretical and policy context
2. Survey fieldwork locations and methodology
3. Poverty and economic exclusion
4. Views about the local area
5. Housing market dynamics
6. Conclusions
1. FRAMING THE SURVEY
Theoretical and policy context Growing socio-spatial polarisation in Australia’s major cities Dominant narrative: spatial concentrations of disadvantage
inherently detrimental to local residents due to ‘neighbourhood effects’ – i.e:
‘…living in a neighbourhood which is predominantly poor is itself a source of disadvantage’
(Atkinson & Kintrea, 2001) Contrary idea that ‘low status suburbs’ may:
• feature substantial social capital • play vital role in urban systems – e.g. migrant gateway function
Questions for the research How applicable to the Australian context are US-
sourced ideas on neighbourhood effects? How comparable is the depth of spatially
concentrated disadvantage in urban Australia? To what extent are residents subject to measureable
‘social exclusion’? Can lower status neighbourhoods perform a
springboard function?
Survey context Survey incorporated within larger 3-year study
on disadvantaged places in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane
Followed on from, and informed by: Large scale secondary data analysis to identify and
classify disadvantaged suburbs Qualitative fieldwork to investigate the experience of
living in disadvantaged places from perspective of residents and other local stakeholders
Series of research reports already published by AHURI on the above
Profile of ‘disadvantaged suburb’ cohort• Disadvantaged suburbs defined
in relation to SEIFA lowest quintile (Australia-wide)
• 177 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane
• 10% of all suburbs, 16% of combined city population
• Disproportionate no of renters (43%) but owners still in majority
• Social housing overrepresented but still only small fraction
• Map follows
Greater Sydney
Disadvantaged suburbs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
31
27
36
30
26
29
6
14
2011 housing tenure profile of Sydney disadvantaged suburbs
Owners Purchasers Private renters
Social renters
% of all households
2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology Fieldwork in four contrasting ‘disadvantaged
suburbs’ in Sydney 801 doorstep interviews by professional
fieldwork firm (approx 200 per area) Sample split equally between
a. recent movers
b. longer-established residents
Sydney fieldwork locations and profiles
• Chosen to ‘represent’ each of 4 socio-economically distinct types of disadv. suburb
• Fieldwork locations: 20-60 km from Sydney CBD
• Incomes relatively low and unemployment high
• Ethnic and tenure profiles quite diverse
Housing tenure and property condition
External condition of…
Owned Being purchased
Private rental
Public rental
All tenures
Dwelling 1 2 18 7 10
Landscape/ garden 2 4 25 13 15
Street 6 4 16 9 11
% in each tenure rated as having ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ external condition/ surroundings:
3. POVERTY AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION
Gauging the depth of deprivation
Went without meals
Pawned or sold item
Sought help from welfare org
Unable to heat home
Trouble paying car reg/insurance
Sought financial help from family/friends
Trouble paying utility bills on time
0 5 10 15 20 25
5
6
8
6
8
11
22
2
2
4
3
6
7
15
Bray’s deprivation indicators
Greater Sydney
Study area average% of all respondents
Responses to question: ‘Over the past year have any of the following happened to you because of a shortage of money?’
• 33% of study area residents affected by specified ‘deprivation’ in past year
• Two thirds higher than Sydney norm (20%)
• Differential greater for ‘more serious’ problems – e.g:
• ‘pawned or sold item’• ‘unable to heat home’• ‘went without meals’
• But only a minority demonstrably ‘doing it tough’
Respondent views on their locality
I would get out of this neighbourhood if I could
Drugs are a problem here
Crime is a problem here
Car hooning is a problem here
There is a strong sense of community
I feel I belong in this neighbourhood
My local area is a safe place to live
0 20 40 60 80
37
40
41
53
62
68
69
% agreeing with statement• Place attachment and positive
sentiments appear high• Balance of respondents believed
their areas recently improving• Certainly not classic sink
neighbourhoods• But problem issues also quite widely
perceived• Purchasers esp. disaffected – e.g:
• ‘I belong in this neighbourhood’: 49%• ‘I would get out of this neighbourhood
if I could’: 49%
4. DIMENSIONS OF EXCLUSION
Constructing synthetic indicators for ‘dimensions of exclusion’
Exclusion dimension Survey questions
Access There are good local facilities and activities for young children*
The area is well served by public transport*
The area has good access to primary schools*
The area has good access to health services*
Civic engagement I visit my neighbours in their homes*
Attendance at local events
Membership of local groups
Community identity There is a strong sense of community in this neighbourhood*
I feel I belong in this neighbourhood*
Economic Monthly household income
Difficulty in paying for essentials
Neighbourhood My local area is a safe place to live*
Car hooning is a problem here*
*Question asked in form of a statement with which respondents were asked to agree or disagree
Dimensions of exclusion by tenure• Two thirds of households
‘excluded’ on at least 1 dimension
• Strong differentiation of exclusion dimensions by tenure
• V high incidence of economic exclusion for renters – only slightly higher in public housing
• Polarisation within owner occupied sector on:• Civic engagement• Neighbourhood• Access
Exclusion dimension Owner Pur-chaser
Private renter
Social renter
Access 26 48 26 29
Civic engagement 26 6 15 20
Community identity 24 23 21 24
Economic 5 5 36 40
Neighbourhood 26 6 23 20
Economic
Community identity
Access
Civic engagement
Neighbourhood
0 50 100
56
26
23
27
36
29
14
12
17
15
Owner PurchaserPrivate renter Public renter
Share of total excluded households located in each tenure
• What is the composition of the ‘excluded population’ in disadvantaged suburbs?
• Need to factor in:• Incidence of exclusion in
each tenure (last slide)• tenure profile of all
disadvantaged suburbs
• On economic exclusion vast majority are renters but mostly private not public
5. HOUSING MARKET DYNAMICS
Mobility dynamics: inter-tenure moves• Vast majority of owner
occupier moves involve FHBs
• Vast majority of private renter moves within private rental
Public renter
Private renter
Owner
0 20 40 60 80 100
72
78
Recent movers: breakdown by tenure of former home
Within tenure From another tenure
% of all recent movers
Mobility dynamics: inter-area moves• More than two thirds of recently
moved homeowners from elsewhere
• PRS moves mostly local• But need to factor in v high
mobility incidence in PRS• Thus, a quarter of all current
private tenants moved into current area within last 5 years
• A relatively high % of ‘possible mover’ homeowners aspire to leave the area in future
Public renter
Private renter
Owner
0 20 40 60 80 100
66
69
Recent movers: breakdown by location of former home
Moved within the 'local area'Moved from outside the 'local area'
% of recent movers
6. CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions Depth of spatially concentrated disadvantage in urban Australia
moderate rather than extreme Place attachment and community activity high but local social
problems also quite widely perceived Economic exclusion largely concentrated in rental housing – private
renters account for substantial majority within overall ‘excluded population’
Disadvantaged areas appear to play an important ‘home ownership gateway’ function
Much greater self-containment of private rental markets implies restraints on onward mobility for private renters